Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Roshi wrote:How does a planet's liquid core form? Let's skip the part about "gas" that forms stars then the stars form pieces of rock and dust and iron (needed to form planets) when they explode. If we have billions of pieces of rock, in close proximity to one another, is gravity enough to squeeze them together and melt them? Melt most of them in fact, the Earth is mostly melted material, the crust is very thin relatively:

Also, how does accretion deal with the fact that gravity does not attract stuff towards a center point, but towards the place with the most mass. That's why in theory if there was a hole through the Earth, in the middle we would be weightless.

You first have to realize planets are ancient stars. It all comes together quite nicely once the belief of stars being something other than planet is tossed.

Planets are ancient stars, stars are young, hot, big planets that can melt down the material, accrete it all and even differentiate it. A star is a planet oven, one star begets one planet as it cools, loses mass and evolves.

"Kepler-10c should not exist". They are so freaking arrogant! They actually thought they had figured it all out! They don't even have planet formation right! How the hell can they know anything about what planets should be like!

And I say it probably doesn't. Show me a picture (infra-red, X-ray... anything!) which they never do, and perhaps I'll at least acknowledge there is "something" there...

Electro wrote:"Kepler-10c should not exist". They are so freaking arrogant! They actually thought they had figured it all out! They don't even have planet formation right! How the hell can they know anything about what planets should be like!

You have to remember, the people who put these findings out are not trained to interpret them in anyway other that what their peers have already accepted to be true. Their published interpretation for the data is out of date before and after they make the indirect/direct observations.

It is similar to North Korea. People watching how "brainwashed" the people are do not understand that the people are being coerced to behave that way. Of course you're going to talk about how great the leader is on TV. If you don't, you get taken away and put into a work camp, or worse, you're tortured until you die and all your family is also tortured and murdered.

You'd smile for the cameras too. To a lesser extent graduates and academics cannot step out of line with the status quo, or else their career is over if they do. It is very, very serious business. They can't speak up. Their way to make money is on the line.

I've come to realize that the parallels between cults/prison countries such as North Korea behave very similarily to astrophysics academia. Sometimes the similarities are uncanny.

Indeed wow, they could no longer uphold the idea that an Earth size planet formed as is, it must have been a mini Neptune before, that based on observations with increasing accuracy of the size of these worlds, see image above.

Indeed wow, they could no longer uphold the idea that an Earth size planet formed as is, it must have been a mini Neptune before, that based on observations with increasing accuracy of the size of these worlds, see image above.

Regards,Daniel

Nothing in the data suggests that they started as mini Neptunes and became stripped of their atmospheres to become hot earths. That assumption is driven by the belief that planets formed in accretion disks and they don't understand where the atmosphere has gone. A better fit for the data is that these suns "birthed" the hot earths and as they aged and expanded and moved away from the sun, an atmosphere has been created by the planet itself.

better fit for the data is that these suns "birthed" the hot earths and as they aged and expanded and moved away from the sun, an atmosphere has been created by the planet itself

I rather favor this threads primis, of just being the end stage of a star's existance. This seems a more conventional approach. Even though it's been a while sence I tracked the discussion here. When I saw this article, I thought of Jeffrey 's theory and what influence it may be having.Star birthing planets counts on a controlled explosion, seems like a long shot to me.

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...' Isaac Asimov

better fit for the data is that these suns "birthed" the hot earths and as they aged and expanded and moved away from the sun, an atmosphere has been created by the planet itself

I rather favor this threads primis, of just being the end stage of a star's existance. This seems a more conventional approach. Even though it's been a while sence I tracked the discussion here. When I saw this article, I thought of Jeffrey 's theory and what influence it may be having.Star birthing planets counts on a controlled explosion, seems like a long shot to me.

Thank you for sharing the link!!! Excellent find!

I think it is having a small influence. Due to my prickly attitude towards dogmatists, I'm sure there will be researchers who claim I never worked on this theory, or worse, because the work I did on the theory wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal it just doesn't count.

They can't have people that do not work in academia outclassing them. It is the "not invented here" syndrome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here The tribalism will get turned on full blast in a few years, it will be awesome watching it all implode.

The second step will be much more difficult and is the most important. They must realize stars lose mass and become "gas giants". What is all means, and is what I've been saying for the past 6+ years is that star evolution IS planet formation. They were never mutually exclusive objects. Young planets are hot, big and bright, unfortunately scientists still classify them as being something else. The more data that rolls in the stranger and stranger their theories will become, guaranteed. I give them a max 50 years (I'll be 82) to fully disavow their current paradigm of young planets being different conceptually than old planets. Hopefully I live that long.

Oh, here's the book, there will be revisions done as it is a perpetual undertaking, but here's what I have so far.

If all the planets, and maybe some moons, in the solar system now were once big old suns, like the one that is still left; where is all that inconceivably vast amount of mass that was "stripped off" to be found now ??

btw, The "third rock from the sun" is not a big rock, it just has a very, very, very thin rocky crust.Nobody knows for sure what is in the center 99% of the globe, be it nebula, star, 'gas giant' or planet. -ss

If one is proposing that every large body orbiting in our solar system was "captured", they need to talk to some real rocket scientists.